Just a request, can you guys manage to license Pathfinder for a spanish translation so it can outsell 4E here too?
Rumor has it that is wasn't possible to reach an agreement with local publishers because Paizo wanted to publish a big ammount of APs and adventures but the spanish-language market can't absorb more books than the core rules, bestiary and campaing setting.
I would want to know Paizo's version because they have been accused of lacking flexibility when licensing localized versions.
TSR was independent, but it had Lorraine Williams. Kinda cancels each other out ;-)Just a point of clarification TSR didn't sell the license, WotC bought the whole company.TSR had to sell the license because the company imploded due to a wide variety of reasons which I won't bring up here. and was essentially going down for the third time. WOTC on the other hand is in far better shape, and actually not doing that badly when you consider that we're still in the Great Recession.
The one thing WOTC has going for them is that they could just shelf dungeons and dragons and still have magic to keep them going. This means that unlike TSR who basically had to sell the license, WOTC could just stop producing anything under it and make it disappear. This is not a good thing for the game.Another point of clarification. WotC isn't an independent company. It's a subsidiary of a large corporation that bought THEM and isn't going to go all "TSR" any time soon. WotC isn't in charge of its own destiny or finances, really. They're a small cog, not the whole enchilada.
Completely different from the TSR situation in that respect.
I just got some strange looks at work when I loudly laughed while reading this. :)
More like this:
FLGS CLERK: Okay, to play in this D&D game, you have to buy this pack of cards.
CUSTOMER: I just bought a $20 box of dungeon tiles.
FLGS CLERK: Well, to play the new D&D game, you need to buy these cards too.
CUSTOMER: What? Is this D&D or a sealed Magic booster tournament?
FLGS CLERK: It's D&D.
DM: Am I allowed to Rule 0 any of the cards if they break the plot?
FLGS CLERK: I don't know. Let me go consult the Palantir. I mean the DDI....
First:
Correct, you need to buy the pack of cards to play the organized play style built around the pack of cards. I'm not seeing the complaint.
Second:
Break the plot? Really? Being able to exclude a square from fireball is going to break the plot? Have you read the cards? No, you haven't, have you.
In short, you literally do not know what you're talking about. I don't mean that as an insult, I mean, literally, you are ignorant of how these cards and how the organized play works.
More like this:
FLGS CLERK: Okay, to play in this D&D game, you have to buy this pack of cards.
CUSTOMER: I just bought a $20 box of dungeon tiles.
FLGS CLERK: Well, to play the new D&D game, you need to buy these cards too.
CUSTOMER: What? Is this D&D or a sealed Magic booster tournament?
FLGS CLERK: It's D&D.
DM: Am I allowed to Rule 0 any of the cards if they break the plot?
FLGS CLERK: I don't know. Let me go consult the Palantir. I mean the DDI....
First:
Correct, you need to buy the pack of cards to play the organized play style built around the pack of cards. I'm not seeing the complaint.
Second:
Break the plot? Really? Being able to exclude a square from fireball is going to break the plot? Have you read the cards? No, you haven't, have you.
In short, you literally do not know what you're talking about. I don't mean that as an insult, I mean, literally, you are ignorant of how these cards and how the organized play works.
I think it's a legitimate question for a DM to make if any of these cards can break the plot. I'm certain there are players on optimization boards as we speak trying to figure out the most broken combos.
Just looking at the preview where they show three of the cards:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/2011January
One of the cards is "Mind over Metal." It allows you to switch whatever the defense usually would be to an attack to Will.
Combine that with some other powers and I'm certain you could take down something which would then screw with the plot.
As a DM, it's a legitimate question to know what weird crap you're going to need to deal with. I ask to see players character sheets all the time, and even if I deal out random cards from Plot Twist decks (a la Paizo) or the old Destiny Deck (long out of print but cool) I have had a chance beforehand to read what something does and slip any potential "utterly hose this adventure" cards out of the deck.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Just a request, can you guys manage to license Pathfinder for a spanish translation so it can outsell 4E here too?
Rumor has it that is wasn't possible to reach an agreement with local publishers because Paizo wanted to publish a big ammount of APs and adventures but the spanish-language market can't absorb more books than the core rules, bestiary and campaing setting.
I would want to know Paizo's version because they have been accused of lacking flexibility when licensing localized versions.
I can't recall that we've ever been approached by a reputable company about a Spanish-language translation. We'd definitely like to see one.
note on business: the less profitable business line that is being abandoned is usually sold off to maximize profit, or licensed out...the latter meaning you can get the same profit for absolutely no cash investment at all, and it's up to the licensees to put the sweat in to raise the profit level.
So if Hasbro were to abandon the D&D name, they'd sell it off to someone else. Or just license, like so many other names and properties do.
==Aelryinth
I have seen way to may product "held" in purgatory. Just because if the parent company could not make money of the idea, then they wanted to hold onto the idea to prevent other competitors from making money off the idea, and maybe put them out of business.
Also, holding onto ideas/products allows you to sue for money at a latter date, use as collateral, and on the books as possible assets. Which then allows you to borrow or sale of division of the company for a greater profit at a latter time.
..........
If i was Hasbro, i would not sale off the name. But start looking for other venues to Mass Market the Name. Much like Marvel and DC have done with Movies. I would hold onto the license, as creative control and to get a better return on the product merchandising.
D&D movies
D&D Animated Cartoon show (2 years or more)
D&D Music
Done correctly, not only would each of these generate money, but it would create a feedback loop. They would spread the name, which in turn, would generate more interest. More interest would allow you to sale more books, and more music, movies, T-Shirts, Mugs, Stickers, Lunch-Boxes, Toys, Candy bars, novels, etc.
So if Hasbro were to abandon the D&D name, they'd sell it off to someone else. Or just license, like so many other names and properties do.
I don't see Hasbro doing either with the D&D brand. Not gonna happen.
I think it's a legitimate question for a DM to make if any of these cards can break the plot. I'm certain there are players on optimization boards as we speak trying to figure out the most broken combos.
Just looking at the preview where they show three of the cards:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/2011January
One of the cards is "Mind over Metal." It allows you to switch whatever the defense usually would be to an attack to Will.
How many full plotlines do you have built around "Player A fails this one save this one time, and I don't fudge it?"
Because that's the only way this could ever "screw with the plot." I mean, what if you roll a 1 on your attack? Do you curse the die and denounce the company that made them for destroying your entire campaign?
I think it's a legitimate question for a DM to make if any of these cards can break the plot. I'm certain there are players on optimization boards as we speak trying to figure out the most broken combos.
Just looking at the preview where they show three of the cards:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/2011January
One of the cards is "Mind over Metal." It allows you to switch whatever the defense usually would be to an attack to Will.
How many full plotlines do you have built around "Player A fails this one save this one time, and I don't fudge it?"
Because that's the only way this could ever "screw with the plot." I mean, what if you roll a 1 on your attack? Do you curse the die and denounce the company that made them for destroying your entire campaign?
Yeah, the fortune cards seem to be suffering a lot of inaccurate bad press. They're not much different from the game mastery plot cards (in fact I think the game mastery cards are more likely to lead to plot headaches given their more open nature).
I suspect the source of the animosity is the collectible card game model - paizo sell you the full set, wizards make you buy boosters.
|
I have seen way to may product "held" in purgatory. Just because if the parent company could not make money of the idea, then they wanted to hold onto the idea to prevent other competitors from making money off the idea, and maybe put them out of business.
I can't remember where I saw it, but I read somewhere an analysis of the toy and mainstream (read: Monopoly, et al) game industry and how Hasbro and Mattel both have a legacy of putting products to "sleep", sometimes upwards of 20 years.
There's a reason every generation seems to have their own version of the same thing ... GI Joe, Transformers, etc.
My guess is that if the D&D brand became a demonstratable flop they'd licence other media like movies to keep the diehards happy and then put the core property to bed for the next generation who aren't coming in with all the baggage.
|
I suspect the source of the animosity is the collectible card game model - paizo sell you the full set, wizards make you buy boosters.
This. Collectible is fine for a CCG, it's part of the fun (I guess, I never got into them). But, I expect my RPG accessories to be complete (I hated the random mini thing, too, I want what I need, not a bunch of stuff I might not need). I think it's pretty lame you have to buy a bunch of stuff (and pile up unneeded dupes) just to get a complete set of one product. Just sell packs, ffs.
I expect my RPG accessories to be complete (I hated the random mini thing, too, I want what I need, not a bunch of stuff I might not need). I think it's pretty lame
This. God yes, this.
This. Collectible is fine for a CCG, it's part of the fun (I guess, I never got into them). But, I expect my RPG accessories to be complete (I hated the random mini thing, too, I want what I need, not a bunch of stuff I might not need). I think it's pretty lame you have to buy a bunch of stuff (and pile up unneeded dupes) just to get a complete set of one product. Just sell packs, ffs.
My feelings exactly.
For the record, I think the cards are a wonderful product for anyone who wants such a product.
I personally will not be buying them :p
But if you're going to dislike them, at least do so for reasons that exist :p
|
|
In the end Wotc like any other company including this one will do what it needs to do to make sure their business is profitable. That is how business works. I do not like it yet I will not begrudge any business owner wanting to own a successful business. How many business owners you know would take a loss in profits on purpose. It's too easy to tos out words such as greed imo.
|
So if Hasbro were to abandon the D&D name, they'd sell it off to someone else. Or just license, like so many other names and properties do.I don't see Hasbro doing either with the D&D brand. Not gonna happen.
I don't see them ever letting the brand go, even if they never publish another RPG book. Not unless something happens and they absolutely have to do it.
They'll keep chugging along with novels, shirts, shoes, lunchboxes and other products labeled with the brand. D&D is like Coke, Tylenol or Xerox, it has become the "generic" name for RPGs and fantasy.|
|
...
If i was Hasbro, i would not sale off the name. But start looking for other venues to Mass Market the Name. Much like Marvel and DC have done with Movies. I would hold onto the license, as creative control and to get a better return on the product merchandising.D&D movies
D&D Animated Cartoon show (2 years or more)
D&D MusicDone correctly, not only would each of these generate money, but it would create a feedback loop. They would spread the name, which in turn, would generate more interest. More interest would allow you to sale more books, and more music, movies, T-Shirts, Mugs, Stickers, Lunch-Boxes, Toys, Candy bars, novels, etc.
The fact that the head of Hasbro Marketing wasn't in the limo outside WotC hq waiting for the ink on the contract to dry is, in my opinion, the company's biggest failing.
A cartoon would have been easy: easy money, easy tie-ins, easy gateway into the hobby. Say they go with the easy idea of each season of a theoretical D&D cartoon follows one or two of the classic modules. (This also assumes that the cartoon would be enjoyable to watch by both the target demographic of kids and teens, and also at least a minor following from adults. Something Like Kim Possible or Jackie Chan Adventures in terms of writing and animation quality.) Say that the first season was, just for an example, Keep on the Borderlands. From that you would have:
* DVD sales of the seasons.
* Toys of the characters & monsters from the show. Thinks like action figures is a given. Maybe play sets, halloween costumes, nerf boffer weapons (hasbro owns nerf, would be super easy to put "D&D" on the side.), ect.
* A re-release of the module (in the latest edition) complete with new art, pre-gens of the characters from the show, and possibly a boxed set.
* Possibly a limited run tie-in comic
* Promote it with a Happy meal if the target demo is pre-teen. More likely it would be a little older
That's me thinkin' at 2am. Given a week to prep a presentation I could come up with a lot of different ways to exploit an IP that has existed longer than I've been alive.
==
AKA 8one6
|
|
...
If i was Hasbro, i would not sale off the name. But start looking for other venues to Mass Market the Name. Much like Marvel and DC have done with Movies. I would hold onto the license, as creative control and to get a better return on the product merchandising.D&D movies
D&D Animated Cartoon show (2 years or more)
D&D MusicDone correctly, not only would each of these generate money, but it would create a feedback loop. They would spread the name, which in turn, would generate more interest. More interest would allow you to sale more books, and more music, movies, T-Shirts, Mugs, Stickers, Lunch-Boxes, Toys, Candy bars, novels, etc.
The fact that the head of Hasbro Marketing wasn't in the limo outside WotC hq waiting for the ink on the contract to dry is, in my opinion, the company's biggest failing.
A cartoon would have been easy: easy money, easy tie-ins, easy gateway into the hobby. Say they go with the easy idea of each season of a theoretical D&D cartoon follows one or two of the classic modules. (This also assumes that the cartoon would be enjoyable to watch by both the target demographic of kids and teens, and also at least a minor following from adults. Something Like Kim Possible or Jackie Chan Adventures in terms of writing and animation quality.) Say that the first season was, just for an example, Keep on the Borderlands. From that you would have:
* DVD sales of the seasons.
* Toys of the characters & monsters from the show. Thinks like action figures is a given. Maybe play sets, halloween costumes, nerf boffer weapons (hasbro owns nerf, would be super easy to put "D&D" on the side.), ect.
* A re-release of the module (in the latest edition) complete with new art, pre-gens of the characters from the show, and possibly a boxed set.
* Possibly a limited run tie-in comic
* Promote it with a Happy meal if the target demo is pre-teen. More likely it would be a little olderThat's me thinkin' at 2am. Given a week to prep a presentation I could...
Hasbro wanted Pokemon and Magic, they didn't give a crap about D&D.
|
Creative Director
|
Hasbro wanted Pokemon and Magic, they didn't give a crap about D&D.
Actually... while Magic and ESPECIALLY Pokemon were significant factors, it's worth keeping in mind that at that point in time, games like Baldur's Gate II, Torment, Icewind Dale, and some other D&D-branded video games were doing INCREDIBLY well. There was a lot going on at WotC around 1999... Hasbro did indeed, I suspect, give a crap about D&D as a result.
|
|
Hasbro wanted Pokemon and Magic, they didn't give a crap about D&D.Actually... while Magic and ESPECIALLY Pokemon were significant factors, it's worth keeping in mind that at that point in time, games like Baldur's Gate II, Torment, Icewind Dale, and some other D&D-branded video games were doing INCREDIBLY well. There was a lot going on at WotC around 1999... Hasbro did indeed, I suspect, give a crap about D&D as a result.
You're right, I should have specified the game, not the brand.
|
For the record, I think the cards are a wonderful product for anyone who wants such a product.
I personally will not be buying them :p
But if you're going to dislike them, at least do so for reasons that exist :p
I have a legitimate reason. It is the company that produces them. I do not wish to support them in any way shape or form.
I personally think the cards are not a good idea. There are enough ways to break the system as it is. Adding such a random way to modify teh game is sure to wreak havoc.
I personally think the cards are not a good idea. There are enough ways to break the system as it is. Adding such a random way to modify teh game is sure to wreak havoc.
Do you think the same about the plot twist cards? I think they're both good ideas (I like paizo's version better given the out-of-combat uses).
|
|
Do you think the same about the plot twist cards? I think they're both good ideas (I like paizo's version better given the out-of-combat uses).
I personally think the cards are not a good idea. There are enough ways to break the system as it is. Adding such a random way to modify teh game is sure to wreak havoc.
Throw me a link and let me read about them.
|
|
Throw me a link and let me read about them.Do you think the same about the plot twist cards? I think they're both good ideas (I like paizo's version better given the out-of-combat uses).
I personally think the cards are not a good idea. There are enough ways to break the system as it is. Adding such a random way to modify teh game is sure to wreak havoc.
They are Similar but not Random and not allowed in Org Play
Throw me a link and let me read about them.Do you think the same about the plot twist cards? I think they're both good ideas (I like paizo's version better given the out-of-combat uses).
I personally think the cards are not a good idea. There are enough ways to break the system as it is. Adding such a random way to modify teh game is sure to wreak havoc.
Beyond my technical capabilities, I'm afraid. They are reasonably similar, except they aren't intended to be used as often, plus they have potential to influence the story outside of combat. They're part of the game mastery cards product line.
For the record, I think the cards are a wonderful product for anyone who wants such a product.
I personally will not be buying them :p
But if you're going to dislike them, at least do so for reasons that exist :p
I can't buy all of them in one pack, with no duplicates. That exists.
Indeed.
It's a set of 80 cards. That's only two more than a tarot deck.
I do not want to pay more for 80 cards than I would for a tarot deck (which incidentally I collect.).
|
|
We should hope this isn't true, or at least that it doesn't cut into WOTC's sales to a great degree. Remember, Hasbro is behind WOTC. That's HASBRO folks. The monetary might of the company that sells Monopoly, the world's largest selling game PERIOD, isn't anything to sneeze at. If Pathfinder becomes what they see as a serious threat, they can buy it out without sweating it. However, I do agree that they seem to be going with the hybrid board/card/rpg thing. I believe that most of your real roleplayers (myself included) don't like the idea of a "collectible" aspect to gaming. Personally, I like the idea of only really having to buy a basic player's handbook kind of thing to play, and Pathfinder fits that to a "T".
Um, Paizo isn't a publicly traded company. Hasbro can't just "buy it without sweating it". That isn't how the real world works.
|
|
Everyone has a price *does a disturbing Evil Laugh* :)We should hope this isn't true, or at least that it doesn't cut into WOTC's sales to a great degree. Remember, Hasbro is behind WOTC. That's HASBRO folks. The monetary might of the company that sells Monopoly, the world's largest selling game PERIOD, isn't anything to sneeze at. If Pathfinder becomes what they see as a serious threat, they can buy it out without sweating it. However, I do agree that they seem to be going with the hybrid board/card/rpg thing. I believe that most of your real roleplayers (myself included) don't like the idea of a "collectible" aspect to gaming. Personally, I like the idea of only really having to buy a basic player's handbook kind of thing to play, and Pathfinder fits that to a "T".Um, Paizo isn't a publicly traded company. Hasbro can't just "buy it without sweating it". That isn't how the real world works.
True, but they can't pull a hostile take over on a privately owned company. No stock to snap up. And, if they're issuing private stock (sweat equity, bonuses, whatever), I'm sure they have a no sell agreement. Hasbro would have to ask nicely and throw a grip of money at Lisa and Vic, and even then I doubt they'd sell. They seem the types to really appreciate and enjoy having built something from nothing, then blowing up to amazing proportions right after their darkest hour.
What still shocks me is that Hasbro did not task it's RPG monkies at wizards with making one shot basic RPG products for some of thief IP. Transformers, GI Joe, and yes even My Little Pony not as an April Fools Joke. Link any "board" mechanics required to the action/doll figures.
Ever since there was chatter about a live action movie (Trans/Joe, still waiting on Pony) it was kinda bugging me that this wasn't the case. Although I'm equally baffled as to how the D&D movies were botched so bad... "the Riddliest" things I had ever seen, save Jeremy Irons *bro-crushing on his villan roles*.
(sorry double post but....)
their darkest hour
Queue "The Touch" by Stan Buch :P
What still shocks me is that Hasbro did not task it's RPG monkies at wizards with making one shot basic RPG products for some of thief IP. Transformers, GI Joe, and yes even My Little Pony not as an April Fools Joke. Link any "board" mechanics required to the action/doll figures.
Ever since there was chatter about a live action movie (Trans/Joe, still waiting on Pony) it was kinda bugging me that this wasn't the case. Although I'm equally baffled as to how the D&D movies were botched so bad... "the Riddliest" things I had ever seen, save Jeremy Irons *bro-crushing on his villan roles*.
I actually think that's the crux of the issue. I don't think Hasbro thinks that the RPG format is a good idea, so why would they subject properties making money to that format?
I've said this before when the topic has come up, but I doubt very much that Hasbro will ever divest itself of the D&D brand.
Way back in 2006 when D&D Online launched, there was an article in PC Gamer where they interviewed a Hasbro executive. If you remember, at the same time that DDO came out, you also had the Eberron RTS game and Demonstone coming out as well.
He said, in the article, that they intentionally put a bunch of non-RPG games into production because they wanted to divorce the "brand" of D&D from the concept of the roleplaying game, and went on to say that people associating D&D with only RPGs was a problem to Hasbro, as the brand itself has high name recognition.
So it appears that Hasbro does know that they own D&D, and knows that it has name recognition . . . they just don't really get, or want to get, the RPG hobby. Given that Hasbro has let Transformers and G.I. Joe go semi-dormant in the past only to relaunch the lines, there may be something to the "let it slowly wind down and lie low for a while while we wait for another generation to spring it on" theories.
|
|
Um, Paizo isn't a publicly traded company. Hasbro can't just "buy it without sweating it". That isn't how the real world works.
Everyone has a price *does a disturbing Evil Laugh* :)
Not that Hasbro is interested in buying Paizo, but for the record...
The problem with that approach is that Hasbro ALREADY did that with Lisa Stevens when they bought WotC in the first place. The owner of Paizo was one of the founders of WotC (its first employee, as a matter of fact). Peter Adkinson was not the only owner of shares in WotC. Lisa Stevens held a significant stake in the corporation when Hasbro paid $320 Million for it ten years ago. How else do you think she bankrolled Paizo in the early days?
When the proverbial dumptruck-full-of-cash has already pulled up to your door once, it has to be significantly more full on the second visit to gain the same "oohs and aahs" impression the dumptruck received on its first visit. And that truck was pretty full the first time around, too!
For a number of other reasons, this would never happen given Paizo's current incarnation, IP and product line.
Still - the point that the second visit of the dumptruck is a much more expensive visit remains true, just the same.
|
|
What still shocks me is that Hasbro did not task it's RPG monkies at wizards with making one shot basic RPG products for some of thief IP. Transformers, GI Joe, and yes even My Little Pony not as an April Fools Joke. Link any "board" mechanics required to the action/doll figures.
Ever since there was chatter about a live action movie (Trans/Joe, still waiting on Pony) it was kinda bugging me that this wasn't the case. Although I'm equally baffled as to how the D&D movies were botched so bad... "the Riddliest" things I had ever seen, save Jeremy Irons *bro-crushing on his villan roles*.
I actually think that's the crux of the issue. I don't think Hasbro thinks that the RPG format is a good idea, so why would they subject properties making money to that format?
I've said this before when the topic has come up, but I doubt very much that Hasbro will ever divest itself of the D&D brand.
Way back in 2006 when D&D Online launched, there was an article in PC Gamer where they interviewed a Hasbro executive. If you remember, at the same time that DDO came out, you also had the Eberron RTS game and Demonstone coming out as well.
He said, in the article, that they intentionally put a bunch of non-RPG games into production because they wanted to divorce the "brand" of D&D from the concept of the roleplaying game, and went on to say that people associating D&D with only RPGs was a problem to Hasbro, as the brand itself has high name recognition.
So it appears that Hasbro does know that they own D&D, and knows that it has name recognition . . . they just don't really get, or want to get, the RPG hobby. Given that Hasbro has let Transformers and G.I. Joe go semi-dormant in the past only to relaunch the lines, there may be something to the "let it slowly wind down and lie low for a while while we wait for another generation to spring it on" theories.
So, they're a pseudo-Lorraine, but as a corp, not a person...
So, they're a pseudo-Lorraine, but as a corp, not a person...What still shocks me is that Hasbro did not task it's RPG monkies at wizards with making one shot basic RPG products for some of thief IP. Transformers, GI Joe, and yes even My Little Pony not as an April Fools Joke. Link any "board" mechanics required to the action/doll figures.
Ever since there was chatter about a live action movie (Trans/Joe, still waiting on Pony) it was kinda bugging me that this wasn't the case. Although I'm equally baffled as to how the D&D movies were botched so bad... "the Riddliest" things I had ever seen, save Jeremy Irons *bro-crushing on his villan roles*.
I actually think that's the crux of the issue. I don't think Hasbro thinks that the RPG format is a good idea, so why would they subject properties making money to that format?
I've said this before when the topic has come up, but I doubt very much that Hasbro will ever divest itself of the D&D brand.
Way back in 2006 when D&D Online launched, there was an article in PC Gamer where they interviewed a Hasbro executive. If you remember, at the same time that DDO came out, you also had the Eberron RTS game and Demonstone coming out as well.
He said, in the article, that they intentionally put a bunch of non-RPG games into production because they wanted to divorce the "brand" of D&D from the concept of the roleplaying game, and went on to say that people associating D&D with only RPGs was a problem to Hasbro, as the brand itself has high name recognition.
So it appears that Hasbro does know that they own D&D, and knows that it has name recognition . . . they just don't really get, or want to get, the RPG hobby. Given that Hasbro has let Transformers and G.I. Joe go semi-dormant in the past only to relaunch the lines, there may be something to the "let it slowly wind down and lie low for a while while we wait for another generation to spring it on" theories.
Derek are you trying to cause the apocalypse? Mentioning she who must not be named this much can't be good.:)
|
|
Throw me a link and let me read about them.Do you think the same about the plot twist cards? I think they're both good ideas (I like paizo's version better given the out-of-combat uses).
I personally think the cards are not a good idea. There are enough ways to break the system as it is. Adding such a random way to modify teh game is sure to wreak havoc.They are Similar but not Random and not allowed in Org Play
More importantly, not required for any kind of play.
Yeah, the fortune cards seem to be suffering a lot of inaccurate bad press. They're not much different from the game mastery plot cards (in fact I think the game mastery cards are more likely to lead to plot headaches given their more open nature).
I suspect the source of the animosity is the collectible card game model - paizo sell you the full set, wizards make you buy boosters.
You know what you're never going to find in Fortune Cards?
Bad things, negative effects.
The Plot Twist cards are designed to give the GM multiple options, both on the card itself, and adjudicating what the effect is.
That's not how the Fortune Cards work. They have very specific effects (bonuses to rolls, re-rolls, etc).
Comparing Plot Twist cards to Fortune Cards is comparing apples to oranges. They're similar, but nowhere close to the same thing.
And yes, I'm sure some of the animosity is the CCG nature of it - on both sides. I think a lot of the hyperbolic defense of these cards, and putting up false analogies to other products in card format is a knee-jerk to early claims that WotC/Hasbro would turn D&D into a CCG given half the chance. Well, here's phase one, in a lot of eyes.
I still take issue with them being required or optional, because in both situations, a player is going to be pretty much required to buy them. Even in the "you can have them in this game if you want, but not required" situation, if other players have them, you're going to need them or be left behind when everyone else is succeeding on all their rolls and you're getting left in the dust.
|
|
For the record, I think the cards are a wonderful product for anyone who wants such a product.
I personally will not be buying them :p
But if you're going to dislike them, at least do so for reasons that exist :p
I can't buy all of them in one pack, with no duplicates. That exists.
Indeed.
It's a set of 80 cards. That's only two more than a tarot deck.
I do not want to pay more for 80 cards than I would for a tarot deck (which incidentally I collect.).
Really?
True, but they can't pull a hostile take over on a privately owned company. No stock to snap up. And, if they're issuing private stock (sweat equity, bonuses, whatever), I'm sure they have a no sell agreement. Hasbro would have to ask nicely and throw a grip of money at Lisa and Vic, and even then I doubt they'd sell. They seem the types to really appreciate and enjoy having built something from nothing, then blowing up to amazing proportions right after their darkest hour.
Take the money, re-release it under a new name using the OGL and Pathfinder Compatibility License. :D
Just kidding. I agree, I don't think they'd sell, at least not to WotC or anyone else with a similar corporate ethos.
Basically, someone like Paizo. Who else like that is around?
So it appears that Hasbro does know that they own D&D, and knows that it has name recognition . . . they just don't really get, or want to get, the RPG hobby. Given that Hasbro has let Transformers and G.I. Joe go semi-dormant in the past only to relaunch the lines, there may be something to the "let it slowly wind down and lie low for a while while we wait for another generation to spring it on" theories.
Ya I read about that interview at the time and it still makes me shake my head at the logic fail. Did no one put in simple terms for these "non-gamers?" I hesitate to say it lest they finally figure it out. Role-playing games are an excuse for an adult to continue to play make believe and play with toy soldiers well past their early teens. For a toy company why would you not want to get your first customers (ages 5-10) indoctrinated so it is culturally acceptable and thus keep them buying "toys" well into their 40s and 50s... likely more expensive "toys" at that.
Role-playing games = standardized make-believe. :P
|
|
True, but they can't pull a hostile take over on a privately owned company. No stock to snap up. And, if they're issuing private stock (sweat equity, bonuses, whatever), I'm sure they have a no sell agreement. Hasbro would have to ask nicely and throw a grip of money at Lisa and Vic, and even then I doubt they'd sell. They seem the types to really appreciate and enjoy having built something from nothing, then blowing up to amazing proportions right after their darkest hour.Take the money, re-release it under a new name using the OGL and Pathfinder Compatibility License. :D
Just kidding. I agree, I don't think they'd sell, at least not to WotC or anyone else with a similar corporate ethos.
Basically, someone like Paizo. Who else like that is around?
Maybe Pramas? He's old school punk rock, DIY and all that. Green Ronin is the only other d20 company I really like. Well, one that has multiple lines and puts out ample product anyway.
I like KQ, Malhavoc and the frog guys who are picking up the Necro slack. And all of them are available to their customers also, which I like.
What i call the GREED factor. Short term Gain for long term loss.I don't know that I'd call it greed, but more, too much big-picture views (from a large corporate standpoint) instead of the ground-level view.
Maybe it's why I'm not in business and not a rich man, but were I a business owner with my own product lines, I'd rather have a few/many smaller, steady, carefully shepherded product lines than one or two big gigantic product lines.
(semi-rant) Look at it this way: If I am a corporate executive, axing a "marginal" profit-making division allows more money to be put in two things - a division with a higher profit margin... and a raise for myself, since I "saved" the company so much money. If you track real (U.S.) wages over the last 20-30 years (even before the recession), the average executive compensation is 20-30 times (!) what it was in the 1980's while average worker compensation has either not increased or slightly declined overall (there was some increase in the 1990's). The U.S. worker is also the most productive per capita (2nd on an hourly basis, IIRC) in the world; the vast gains in productivity due to automation and IT have been basically "skimmed off the top."
A lot of the underlying issues with the recession can be traced to poor business decisions based on maximizing stock price/executive compensation at the expense of producing an actual corporate product. Long term company management has not been much of a consideration with large companies for a long time. I'd recommend the documentary about the Enron colapse, "The Smartest Guys in the Room;" the difference between Enron and many other corporations (can we say the banking industry?) is a matter of degree, rather than kind.